Lesson video

In progress...


Hi, everybody and welcome back to another citizenship lesson.

My name is Miss Elmi and I'll be your teacher for today.

And in today's lesson, we're going to bring all the things we've learned over the last few weeks together, okay? And so before we start, I just want to make sure that you have everything you need in front of you.

You have a pen and paper, and you're in a quiet space where you can focus and concentrate.

Okay, are you ready? Brilliant, let's get started.

So, in today's lesson, we are going to be exploring the big overarching question that we've been looking at, which is this concept of democracy.

And the question we're going to be looking at, in particular is, does democracy work well? Now, last lesson, we looked at in particular was the, we looked at how democracy can be improved and we talked about about the different ways of improving democracy.

Either through improving the form of representation that we get.

Either through participation and how we can encourage more of the public to participate in our political system.

And the final way that can improve our democratic system is to also improve potentially the electoral system or our voting system.

How we choose our representatives, the manner in which we count the votes.

So there was those three key ways of improving democracy and we focused specifically on one of them, which was participation.

What are the ways in which our democracy can be improved by improving the level of public participation? And we focused on one particular way.

And that was lowering the voting age.

And we looked at the different ways democracy improved over time.

We discussed that democracy is not static, it's constantly fluid, it changes over time.

And one of the key things that has changed over time is this idea of voting, who has the right to vote? Now currently, any adult citizen in the UK has the right to vote if they are over the age of 18.

But there's also a debate whether actually we should expand that franchise, we should expand the right to vote.

And we should expand it to potentially 16 to 17 year olds.

And we've seen this in different parts of the United Kingdom now, actually, taking part in this initiative and lowering the voting age to 16.

So we saw Wales do the same for local elections and also Scotland.

So we looked at the different arguments for and against lowering the voting age and talked about whether doing that will actually help or hurt democracy.

And so what we're going to now focus on is doing a deliberative debate, okay? So what do we mean by a deliberative debate? Deliberative debate often consists of forms of deliberation, which means when you think very carefully or consider very carefully a topic or issue.

And you discuss that topic or issue from a range of different perspectives and a range of different viewpoints.

Deliberative debate today is on democracy.

And our key statement that we need to explore today is this one, democracy in the UK works perfectly well, there is no need for it to change.

How far do you agree? Now, over the last few lessons, we looked at different aspects of democracy.

And so the focus for this lesson is to bring those aspects together, bring all those key concepts in order to answer or take a position around this particular statement.

Is democracy perfect? Does it work perfectly well? Or does it need to change now? Okay, so let's recap some key terminologies you're going to need for this lesson, okay? So on the screen you have three key terminologies.

Representative democracy, direct democracy, and referendums. What I want you to do is, using your worksheet, pause this video and just match up the key terms with their definition.

Once you're done, just come back and then we'll look at the correct answers.

Okay and welcome back.

As you can see from this screen, we have the key words matched to the correct definition.

So these are some of the key words we've explored over the last few lessons.

Representative democracy is a form of democracy, whereby people elect government officials to make decisions on their behalf.

So they elect representatives.

So in the UK, we have a representative form of democracy.

This is different to a direct form of democracy where people decide directly on issues or policies for themselves.

So they don't have somebody else deciding for them, but they decide for themselves and make a direct decision.

And the final one, like I mentioned, is referendum.

Now referendum is essentially a general vote by the electorate on a single political question, which has been referred to them for direct decision.

So referendum is a form of direct democracy.

Let's have a look at few more key words.

You have three key words here.

Again, do the same, just pause the video and try and match these to the correct definition.

And when you're done, come on back and we'll go through the answers.

Okay, welcome back.

Okay, so as you can see, these key terms are referring to some of our electoral systems, our voting systems. How we decide who wins an election or who becomes our representatives.

So the method of which we decide who becomes our representatives is through a first-past-the-post system.

And a first-past-the-post system essentially is where a candidate or party is selected because they've gained the most number of votes, but not a majority of votes, okay? So they gain the most amount of votes, but not necessarily 51%, which is a majority.

This is different to a proportional representational system.

And in a proportional representation system, each seat, that is one, is in portion to the number of votes cast, okay? So if Person X gained 25% of the votes, they would get 25% of seats in the House of Parliament.

So what this does is it creates more fairness.

And another key term that we looked at is this aspect of constituency.

And a constituency is just a name, a political terminology given to an area whose voters elect a representative or a legislative body.

All right, we're going to try this one more time.

I'm going to ask you to do the same thing, again.

Three other key terms to have a look at, match it to the correct definition, then come on back and we'll look at the answers.

Okay and welcome back.

So the three key was here is legitimacy, accountable and media freedom.

Now legitimacy is a key terminology, political terminology that we looked at.

Because one of the key and most important aspects of a democracy is to ensure that our elected officials are in those positions legitimately.

Okay, they're given that authority and the way they're given that authority to govern and rule is through elections.

So the word legitimacy essentially just means in politics, the right and acceptance of an authority.

Accountable, accountable means to be held responsible for your actions.

Okay, so we hold our elected officials accountable for the things that they say and do while they are in office.

And the third and final key term is media freedom.

So one of the key features of our democracy that we looked at is this idea of freedom of speech, and media freedom.

Media freedom essentially just means all forms of communication and expressions through various forms of media should be exercised, freely.

Meaning there shouldn't be a lot of constraint or restriction held on the media to say or write what they think is right.

So now that we've reviewed some key terminologies, okay? Make sure you've noted those down, okay? And matched it to the correct words.

And if you're unsure of any of those key terminologies, feel free to just go back and revise and learn those words.

So just to summarise and recap over the last few lessons, what we looked at and what we explored.

So in the first lesson, we define what democracy is, okay? And democracy essentially means rule by the people, whereby people have the power to make decisions on how they are presented or governed.

And then we looked at the different types of democracies that exist.

And we particularly looked at the different forms for direct forms of representations.

So direct forms of democracy and representative forms of democracy.

And then we looked at what makes a democracy strong, okay? Or what makes a democracy a democracy.

Which are the key features? And how these key features are implemented.

And how well they are implemented determines how strong a democracy is.

And we looked at their different ways, we can improves democracy and like I said at the beginning, there are three ways we can improve democracy.

We can try to improve representation, okay? Or we can expand the number of people that participate cause one of the key features of a democracy, which I didn't mention earlier, is active participation of the public or citizens.

Or we can and the final way to improving democracy, we can change our voting system, so we make it much fairer.

Okay, so, that is what we've explored and learned over the last few weeks, okay? So, what I want us to do in today's lesson is now to recap Some of those key aspects and answer this statement.

Come to a position on this statement and decide where you stand and what are the different viewpoints to this statement? Let's start off by revising.

Okay, like I said, one way to improve democracy is just to improve our forms of representation.

So we have a representative democracy and representative democracies have strengths and weaknesses.

So what I want you to do is just note down some of those strengths and weaknesses.

Okay, and also some of those evidence that I've noted down on the screen here.

So I'm just going to talk through those strengths and weaknesses and just kind of condense what we've learned into a very short and simple way of explaining it.

So representative democracy, why is that a good thing? Why is that a strength? Well, first of all, when we have representatives that make decisions for us, we trust them because they have experience and they may have more knowledge about issues that affect not just me but everybody else within our community.

In terms of time, if we had to vote in a direct democracy, on every law or every policy that was being implemented, it would take a lot of time.

And sometimes things that are really important that require urgent attention might not get looked at.

So representative democracy actually speeds up that time.

Having someone make those decisions on your behalf helps because actually, it means that things that are important that need to get tackled is done so quickly.

It's also less expensive.

Now, in in a representative democracy, we have elections every five years to elect representatives.

And so that means we only have to pay for that election once every five years.

But if we had direct forms of democracy, where elections took place quite often, like it does in Switzerland, it can become very expensive for the taxpayer.

And people could get very tired of voting so much.

And it can lead to lack of participation or a low voter turnout.

And then the final strength of a representative democracy, is this aspect of accountability.

We know who we can hold responsible.

And so if a decision is made, we know who is responsible, why they should be held responsible.

And if we don't want if we don't want that representative making decisions for us, we can always vote them out in the next election.

So what evidence supports having a representative democracy? Well, in 2019 general election, there was quite a high turnout and roughly, well somewhat high turnout, with 67.

3% of the public participating.

But compared to a direct form of democracy, like a referendum, we had 84% of people turning out.

This could suggest that actually representative democracies engage the public, direct forms might be much more suited to the public, okay? It might show that actually the public are more engaged on single issues or single policies, more so than just in general politics, or in general election, sorry.

So what are the weaknesses of representative democracies? Well, firstly, it's not always true that our MPs or elected officials know more.

Some MPs have to rely on experts and other other aspects in order to get their information.

Also, the public are more informed today than they have been in the past, we now have easy access, through new forms of media, to key political information and key issues that affect our community.

So the public are much more aware of of issues that affect them and their community in a much more deep way and some MPs might not be as knowledgeable as the public.

A second weakness and something that we see quite often, is that MPs can be pressured by their own party to vote along party lines.

What that means is that they can be pressured to vote along the way the party wants them to vote and that might conflict with how their constituents want them to vote.

Or how those that they represent want them to vote.

And the final weakness is that you can still have disagreements in a representative democracies.

And sometimes that can lead to gridlock, that lead to things not getting done in Parliament.

This is something we saw with Brexit, okay? Where there was a lot of political disagreement around the EU and being part of the EU.

And so, sometimes decisions need to be referred to the public.

So in those circumstances, it's inevitable to have direct forms of democracy.

So that is a general recap of representative democracies.

Okay, note those points down.

Okay, if you need to pause the video at this point, feel free to do so.

If not, we're going to go straight on to our next aspect, is the first-past-the-post system.

And there's been a lot of arguments to suggest that our voting system needs to change.

That it isn't supporting a healthy and strong democracy.

But others also suggest that actually, it works perfectly fine and you should stay as it is.

And these are the reasons why.

So firstly, the first-pass-the-post one of the key strengths of having this voting system is that it's clear and it's simple to understand.

You vote for one person to represent you and if that person gets the most votes, they win.

Which means that actually votes can be calculated really quickly.

And so the results are given pretty quickly to the public and we know who effectively wins an election by early next morning or if not that night.

But what this also does, it makes it very clear who your representatives are, okay? Because there's only one person that's representing you, you know who they are.

Which that means it creates a very close relationship and close bond between you as a citizen and a constituent and your MP.

And the final strength of having a first-past-the-post system is that it usually creates a strong and a stable government.

Which means that essentially, if there is a majority, if a party wins with a majority number of seats, they can govern pretty easily, because they will only rely on their party to pass things through.

And actually having gridlock, there will be less gridlock in Parliament when it comes to making new laws.

And so there is strength in having a system which produces clear winners and also potentially can produce a party to lead with a majority.

But there are also some weaknesses.

And the biggest and most significant weakness is that there are lots of wasted votes.

Because this is a plurality system, where the winner with the most votes wins, it can mean that the winner might win with only share of the votes, such as 30% and 70% of the people would be unrepresented.

And as a result, their vote would be wasted.

And so some people suggest that actually, in a healthy and strong democracy there should be a proportional representational system, where there is equal shares to of votes that reflect the seats won.

Another weakness of fast-past-the-post is the fact that sometimes smaller parties are disadvantaged.

They may not get the opportunity to govern or gain sufficient amount of seats to have an impact.

And so smaller parties aren't always represented, which means different views and different ideas aren't always expressed.

And sometimes you can get a reduced turnout.

And the reason why you can get a reduced turnout is because if people think their votes are going to be wasted or their party is not going to win, they may feel apathetic.

They may feel like there's no point in voting.

So what is the evidence that suggests that there are strengths and what the evidence that suggests that there are weaknesses.

So one good evidence to use is the 2019 election.

And so, the 2019 election, although it showed a little less turnout than the 2017, it still produced a strong majority.

So the Conservatives won a strong majority of 365 seats in 2019, even though there was slightly less turnout.

And then evidence to show that this is somewhat of a weakness and might need to change is looking at how Lib Dems fared, the Liberal Democrats.

They received the third largest share of votes, but only 1% of seats, which shows that actually a large portion the public isn't fully represented and smaller parties don't fully get an opportunity to succeed under this system.

Okay, so we looked at how well democracy functions in the UK in relation to fast-past-the-post.

Now the final concept that I want you to think about is voting, okay? And the voting age in general.

So as we know, democracy is not static, it evolves with time.

And as a result of all the campaigning over the years, we've seen the expansion of the franchise.

We've seen an expansion of people getting the right to vote.

So it was not long, over 100 years ago, women gained the right to vote.

More recently, 2014 we saw the Scottish Government allow 16 to 17 year olds to vote in the 2014 referendum.

And now Wales have also chosen to lower the voting age.

So, voting age is a good area to look at when we talk about trying to increase participation, increasing the number of active citizens.

And one way to do that is to lower the voting age.

Because if you have active citizens and you have more people taking part, your democracy can be considered to be healthy.

So what are the strengths or weaknesses of these arguments? So one argument is that we should lower the voting age because it will continue to improve our democracy.

We've seen happen years ago and even more recently.

And so actually, there's only good that can come out of it.

It can only be a positive.

Another argument in favour of lowering the voting age is that 16 to 17 year olds, who already hold a lot of responsibilities such as, they're able to get married, have sex and also join the army, should also be given that same right, which is the right to vote.

And finally, it would mean that they are better represented.

Meaning if they have the ability to vote for their representatives, they can push through the issues and ideas and values that they believe in and that affect them the most.

Things like tuition fees, university tuition fees, or free charter bus travel.

Some of the challenges to this, however, is that 16, 17 year olds still do not have full citizenship.

They may be able to join the army, but they still need permission from their parents to do so.

And they can't go on the front lines.

So they don't have the full citizenship.

And some people think that it's only right for them to have their full citizenship if they are to vote.

Another key argument is that they can be easily influenced.

And at that age, young people are impressionable.

And politics is very complicated and they can be influenced, either through their parents or their teachers, if they are given that ability to exercise the vote.

And that can have a huge impact on issues and policies that are implemented.

And the final criticism is actually, there's no guarantee that 16 to 17 year olds will vote, even if they are given the right to vote.

There is notoriously low participation with young voters, especially between the ages of 18 and 24.

18 to 24 year olds are less likely to vote in general elections than those in the older brackets, such as those of 45 or older.

So, will this really strengthen our democracy? Would it make it better? Some people think it won't.

Some people think it will be more damaging, because there's no guarantee that they will be active participants in our democracy.

So what is the evidence either for these arguments or against these arguments? We know that 72% of 16 to 17 year olds did turn out to the to vote in the Scottish referendum.

Which shows that actually they are engaged and that they are likely to participate in the democracy.

And we know that only 24% of the public, however, support lowering the voting age.

Which suggests that most of the people in the UK do not want 16 to 17 year olds to have the right to vote, or do not think it is right for them to get that right.

So I'm just going to pause there.

Have now explained each of those four concepts.

And when you think back to our key question, does democracy work perfectly well? Or does it need to change? Using your worksheet, all I want you to do is now plot each of these concepts along this continuum.

Okay, if you think our representative democracy works perfectly well, it's strong, it doesn't need to change, then I want you to just place it along that continuum, right over there on the left.

And if you don't think our representative forms of democracy work very well.

And you think it is in desperate need of reform or we should adopt a direct form of democracy, then I want you to place a right representative democracy on the right.

But explain your reason why, Okay? So explain why you think representative democracy works very well.

Or why do you think it's in need of reform.

And if you're slightly, if you're not swayed either way and you think there's room for some improvement, but it should still remain, place in the middle.

But the main thing is that you justify and give a reason, okay? So, I'm going to give you a minute just to pause the video and complete that task.

Okay and welcome back.

What we're now going to do, now that we unpacked the key concepts and we've looked at some of the key ideas around how we can improve democracy in the UK and some of the arguments to suggest why it should stay the same or why should be changed, we now need to bring all those key aspects and key concepts together and formulate our own opinion, okay? And the way that we do that is in a deliberative debate format, okay? And I want you to formulate a REAL argument.

REAL stands for rational, examples, analysis and link, okay? I want you to formulate your perspective on this issue.

I'm going to show you a model first, okay? Democracy in the UK works perfectly well.

There is no need for it to change.

How far do you agree? So let's have a read of this works model.

Democracy in the UK works very well.

This is because we have representative democracy and representatives who are elected by their constituents every five years.

Having regular elections is vital in a democracy as it ensures we have accountable Members of Parliament.

For example, it was considered the 2019 that it was, sorry.

It was considered that the 2019 general election was also another Brexit election because it allowed voters to vote for the representative they believed would honour the 2016 referendum.

As a result, many seats were lost by some MPs who failed to fulfil this commitment.

Therefore, having a representative democracy with regular elections can ensure the wishes of the public and promises are fulfilled.

Now, what makes this a good answer is they make a clear rationale at the beginning, stating and giving reasons for their point.

They then use an example and they analyse and explain that example and link their answer back to their rationale.

So I just want you to now pause again this video and answer the statement using the sentence starters to support, okay? Democracy in the UK works perfectly well, there is no need for it to change.

How far do you agree? So using the sentence starters, complete those sentences.

Okay and welcome back.

Okay, so now that we've revised all the content that we've learned over the last few weeks, I now want you to formulate a speech presenting it, okay? So what makes a good speech? First of all, let's go back.

First of all, what makes a good speech is being persuasive and emotive, okay? So, you are using language that emotes feeling, okay? That convinces others of your position.

All about democracy and the different key concepts and how well it works and some of its strengths and some of its weaknesses.

So you need to bring some of those ideas and inform the audience, okay? Give them that information.

And use a range of vocabulary.

So go back to some of the key terms we've explored at the beginning of this lesson.

You have to also use evidence.

In order to be persuasive, you need to provide some factual evidence to support your case.

And then, an engaging speech is lively and has flair, okay? So we're going to watch a video and while we watch this video, I want you just to think about what is good about this speech and why might this speech be considered powerful? Yeah, this is the single most important issue you will hear today, Votes at 16, this is it.

Books, you've heard it before, haven't you? This has been at UKYP national campaign for the past two years, it's been debated and debated and debated and and nothing has happened.

There has been no change.

I was born on the 28th of November 2003.

Believe it or not, I might not look it, but I am 14.

And between that day in this day, there have been 16 parliamentary bills and there have been seven democratic calls for change.

Children and Young People's Unit, 2002, Vote 16, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2014, 2012 to 2018.

And just three weeks ago, this very House of Commons Briefing Paper, 42 pages was published.

And I'm sure you will read it in detail.

And yes, like I said, You have heard it all before and still no change.

So I'm not going to go over old ground.

I'm not going to remind you of the compelling evidence for giving us the votes, of the Markus Wagner electoral study from Austria, where by the way, the voting age is 16, which proves the quality of young people's votes is just as good as the quality of the older voters.

I won't need to revisit the idea that 16 and 17 year olds can legally marry, fight for and have sex with their MPs, but they can't vote for them.

I won't bother to frighten you with the risks of not giving young people a voice with disaffection and disengagement, with lack of faith in our political system.

With seeking a voice elsewhere through gangs, through crime, through extremism and through evolution.

No, no, I'm not going to do any of that, simply because you've heard it all before.

So why has nothing changed? Simple, there is not the political will.

Those in power do not want another group to win.

Who speak in languages they don't understand.

Who operate on social media platforms they've never heard of.

And young people like to change things, including the people who lead them.

And so they won't give us the votes.

Not unless we the UK Youth Parliament make it happen.

And therefore, I'm going ask you one question.

And one question only.

And each of you will need to decide how do you wish to be judged by your children and the future generation, when they look back at your decision today? Let me give you some context.

Who would say this about women getting the vote? "Oh, yeah sir, women who would be neglecting their homes, if they came into the Commons, it would be cruel to drag them into the political arena to ask them to undertake responsibilities, which they do not understand and which they do not care for." Now, who would say this? I'll tell you.

112 years ago, Sir Samuel Evans, MP for Mid Glamorgan and Sir Randall Kramer, Liberal MP for Hackney who presented the arguments on this very spot.

Now, how would you judge this kind of view now? Sexist, arrogant, ignorant and prejudicial.

So we stand here at yet another crossroads in the UK's democracy.

How do you wish to be judged by the future generations? Don't vote for arrogance, don't vote for ignorance.

Don't vote for prejudice.

Don't be judged by the future generation for depriving us the youth of a voice.

And yes, yes, you've heard it all before, but this time, let's make a real difference.

let's engage our youth, let's lobby our MPs and let's make Votes for 16 our national campaign, thank you.

Okay, pause the video, and then come on back and we can discuss what makes a good speech.

Okay and welcome back.

So one of the key things that made Alex's speech really powerful and really persuasive, is he used a lot of flair and humour in his speech, which engaged the audience.

But his speech was well-structured, he had a great beginning to his speech and the middle section really informed the audience about the facts of what he was presenting.

So in the same way, what I want you to do now is create your own speech.

So step one is to plan and make a list of all the key words and phrases you want to use that are linked to democracy and everything we've been learning so far.

I then want you to note down some of the key facts and information and evidence that will go into the bulk of your speech.

And I have attached a planning sheet to help.

And then I want you to actually draught your speech, following steps two, three, and four, okay? So in the beginning, don't forget to define what does democracy mean? And explain what makes a healthy democracy? And then inform the audience.

Why might some argue that democracy works well in the UK? Or why might some disagree, okay? So take a position, give a perspective.

Either you think democracy works really well, or you think that actually there's room for it to improve.

And then the final step is, how do you think people should feel about democracy in the UK? Content overall judgement.

Should they feel positively about democracy in the UK? Or do you think that people should think about how we can improve it and make it better? And to challenge yourself, I want to you to think about this challenge question, okay? If you were to change the statement of today, what would you change it to and why? Okay, so pause this video now and go ahead and write your speech and then I want you to record and say your speech out loud.

Record it on a phone, make sure you give eye contact, you show confidence and flair, you vary your tone and your pace and you are authoritative in your opinion, okay? Support it with good reasons and evidence.

Once you've done that, come back to the video and then I want you to upload and tweet your speech, okay? Use a parent or carer to show your work on Twitter and the Twitter, so @OakNational and use the hashtag LearnwithOak.

Okay, we have now come to the end of the lesson.

I just want to say well done to everybody that has taken part.

Well done, I know it was tough concepts and challenging concepts today.

Well, I hope you you've enjoyed the subject and you've learned a lot.

Feel free to go ahead and complete your exit quiz.

And when you're ready, upload those speeches.

I really look forward to watching each and every single one of you.